After
the DisasterLast edited: Monday, July 23, 2007Posted:
Monday, July 23, 2007

An Excerpt from An Interview with Perris Hilarious The following represents the last few minutes of an interview that was never conducted and did not take
place on August 5, 2007. The interviewer was not Mark Applebaum from NCC Empire News, the interviewee was not Perris Hilarious,
recently released from jail where she had not been held for misdemeanor assault charges. The interview was not conducted at
the modest home of the interviewee.

From the beginning of time, it took six days to create mankind, or perhaps millions
upon millions of years for man to ooze from the chemical and biological slime, depending on whose books one is reading. During
that time of creation, after about two and one-half days or so, God's mighty fist thundered upon the dinosaurs and other
species to create future oil reserves for later use by mankind, or perhaps it was a meteor about sixty million years ago.
During the last 10,000's of years leading up to today's 21st century, or perhaps it was 6,000 years according
to some books, man evolved to believe that it was necessary to hate others of the same or similar species for the simple reason
that they looked different and, thereby, threatening, or perhaps because they had desired possessions that could be used for
one's own benefit. Hate was born from fear and greed and the concept of “them” and “us” was created
and remains a constant reminder of our primal instincts to display our superiority over others, whoever “we” are,
or perhaps to simply protect what is “ours" from "them.”

The Indulgence of EvilLast edited: Saturday, May
12, 2007Posted: Saturday, May 12, 2007

Can
you recognize evil when you see it, hear it, observe it, participate in it? Can you define it as morally objectionable behavior
or as that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune? Or do you just know it if you listen to that small voice inside
which tells you that something is not quite right?

You know that evil is everywhere and part of the human makeup. It
cannot be escaped when you see others engaged in it or you stand by while it encroaches on your living space and mental stability.
You would like to ignore it to protect your sanity or because you are afraid that you may become a part of it. It is much
easier to pretend that, in our civilized world, one can protect oneself and those we love from it if we just pretend it will
not touch us. Yet the bad-news talking heads of television and other media is doing everything in their power to remind us
of the existence of evil and yet we deny that we are part of it.

For weeks now, it seems we have been unable
to escape the media's coverage of everything related to Anna Nicole Smith and all the idiotic goings-on about her estate,
her child, her marital status and anything else the dozens of lawyers object to before a judge who strikes me as having been
formerly a member of the Keystone Cops.

Let me review some of my wonderings:

Can you recall what your mother long ago called the girls who got pregnant out of wedlock and could not even subsequently
name the father? Okay, perhaps she was married to the father of the child so why is everyone trying to prove otherwise?

Why is the media now attempting to portray ANS as an adorable
whatever with a wonderful personality who should rightfully be a role model for our easily impressed young folks? Is money-grabbing
now a sexual requirement for physically enhanced blonds, even if brain surgery was not part of that enhancement?

Could it be that this is not really a paternity issue but rather about the huge
trust fund that would be available to the happy winner of all these legal wranglings?

Are they really going to rename Court TV to ANS TV? For now, I guess this would be appropriate since
every time I tune to this channel, there is extensive coverage of the latest ANS debacle, drummed up by the various factions
and their attorneys.

Are you watching the bumblings
of this judge in the Bahamas who apparently is doing all he can to position himself to be on the next reality show in the
making?

I have some suggestions, which would significantly
shorten the length of court hearings and media coverage thereof and I cannot help but to assume this to be a very good thing.

Instruct all
the attorneys that this matter will, henceforth, be handled pro-bono by them and

Surrender the child to the appropriate foster-care system, along with any trust fund
appertaining thereto.

These two measures
will undoubtedly shorten the entire fiasco to about five more minutes and the media will then be able to concentrate on subsequent
legal maneuvers between foster-care agencies. Aside from that, Court TV will be able to reclaim its name and, once again,
cover the much more sane proceedings of wives killing their husbands, mothers killing their children and government officials
lying to the FBI and the public, however unbelievable the latter may be.

If this title
offends you on some level, even marginally, congratulations . . . read on.

If it does not, or if it leaves you blank,
go watch television-”Girls gone wild” or perhaps the first five minutes of “CSI Miami”. You could
also go find some Chic-Lit, which is now in vogue for just such Chic-Fans or watch a Chic-Flic; they seem to have their own
TV channels now as well. If you are a writer of Chic-Lit, make sure you do your research, go to a 'Rave', do some
coke or E (no Pepsi for you) and find out who is sleeping with whom. That's what I call the “Chics and Studs”
routine (I renamed that from “Sluts and Studs” so it would not sound so offensive). When you grow up, if you survive
all that, you can explain to your children why their brains have been fried along with yours.

Recently, I have
received the fortunate news that The Mississippi Crow Magazineshall be publishing one of my current articles Writers and Rebels (has now been published in
the Spring 2007 issue). This would, of course, also explain some of my enthusiasm for this publication.

Thus, as of today, I have yielded copy and publication rights to The Mississippi Crow Magazine until such time as
publication has been completed during 2007. The article will, most likely, be published in two installments but that decision
belongs to Nadia Giordana.

Nevertheless, I have agreed with publisher that the article, as follows, will
not be removed from my website in the sincere hope that readers will want to further explore all the other worthwhile offerings
of this publication.

When I first announced to my female friends that I was writing an article about females being routinely objectified,
they all, without exception, expressed the sentiment that this really needed to be discussed since they were so tired of of
being considered just objects by the male population around them. “Men are such pigs, I can see it in their eyes, they
make us do it,” one further expressed. When I mentioned it to my male friends, they mostly just stated “huh?”

I don't think either of these groups perceived the subject of my discussion, otherwise their opinions about this
writing before its display of content may have been just the opposite. Perhaps the females would have said: “Oh, no,”
and the males might have commented: “huh?”

What do we do when we objectify something? We adorn
and externalize “it” in some way, make it more pleasing to the eyes of strangers and ourselves, our homes, our
gardens, our cat or dog, our cars, all in an effort to raise the perception of ourselves to a new, more admirable level. We
all want to be liked, or loved, and looking adorned or pampered helps – except for the sociopaths among us.

So, what do women across America do every morning? Before facing the world outside our homes, they spray their hair,
they paint their eyes and surrounding wrinkles, they blush and color their faces to hide the paleness of the night, their
lips become objects of unlawful thoughts, their ears are poked with sticks to enlarge the cavity that will hold silver, gold,
or other monstrous hanging apparitions.

Their bodies will be creamed and blushed after having been enlarged
or diminished in places, botoxed or liposucked and then, of course, they will have to cover the whole thing with clothing
kept to a minimum but enough to highlight the underlying works of art. They spent hours at such activities and keep the American
economy booming with billions of dollars in the products required to sheath themselves in such armor. That's billions
with a “B”. Without such doings, unemployment would wreck the economy. But I had another thought. If just on one
day, women would forgo their objectification of themselves and instead dump the products usually used, the EPA would declare
the place where they dumped it a toxic wasteland.

“Now,” you might rightfully ask, “what
do you have against the beautiful results coming about with all these adornments?” The answer may surprise you, having
read the above: “Nothing.” My problem arises when I listen to the dishonest and deceptive allegations by women
that men are responsible for it since they make them do it. Without it, they claim, they have no chance with men, to be acknowledged
or found to be desirable. To that, I would only state: “When is the last time you know of when a man has ignored a naked
woman? Aren't you also saying, in other negative attributions, that this is all it takes?”

I saw a naked
woman once running up the street from the Greyhound bus station in downtown Los Angeles through the city, carrying a brown
paper bags with her clothes, wearing a string of pearls and a pair of sensible shoes. Good for her. The only males not paying
attention were the cops on the street corners, directing traffic. They did not want to deal with her and waved her right through
the intersections. Too bad, I did not have my camera with me.

But, that's really not the point.
I just heartily object to blaming all those bad males for lusting after women and, thereby, objectifying women. “The
men make us do it,” argument just does not hold water. The only place where I would agree and blame the men is that
faraway place where men throw sheets over their women and make them walk ten feet behind them. In such cases, I would agree,
the men made them do it.

So keep doing what you're doing, no objections from this end. Just keep in
mind as to who is objectifying whom and it will, by chance, get women and men closer together, in mind, body, and spirit and
in . . . whatever. The men are not the enemy. Prevarication is. N'est pas?